Should you be responsible for someone's actions with your stolen property?

Thorgrim · 07-16-2007, 12:13 AM

So if you give an 18 year old high school senior a bottle of vodka, you are not responsible in anyway if he drives drunk and kills someone...and should not be answerable to any law?

I mean, the kid is the one who decided to drink it, he's the one who decided to drive, obviously you'd be blameless in that situation, no one could fault you for anything

Kytro · 07-16-2007, 12:16 AM

This is why I dislike the current legal system, having overly-complex law and expecting everyone to able to know / understand it all.

JaJae · 07-16-2007, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So now we only obey the laws we like?

If someone uses that unsecure gun to kill a kid, there is not 0.000001% responsibility? You do not believe in the concept of being partially responsible?

Someone could have broken into his home and stolen a steak knife and went out and killed a kid with it. Should he be held responsible for that murder? What if someone broke into his home and stole his baseball bat and hit someone over the head with it? Should he be responsible?

It seems people have an irrational need to blame gun owners for the actions of criminals.

Thorgrim · 07-16-2007, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Someone could have broken into his home and stolen a steak knife and went out and killed a kid with it. Should he be held responsible for that murder? What if someone broke into his home and stole his baseball bat and hit someone over the head with it? Should he be responsible?

It seems people have an irrational need to blame gun owners for the actions of criminals.

There are no laws to secure steak knives and baseball bats in your house...also anyone, including the mentally insane, can buy such from any store

I think everyone agrees that the guns the VA Tech guy was sold...there should have been a warning light somewhere but it didn't go off because he waited a month between purchase...but we both know no one seriously thinks there should be backround checks at sporting good shows

There is a huge difference between a gun and a baseball bat...how many peope do you think could have been killed at VA Tech with a baseball bat...now how many were killed with a gun? Remember people barricaded doors, jumped out windows...they did not just sit around

motivez · 07-16-2007, 12:25 AM

/agree JaJae

There's many objects in one's home that could be potentially used for crime / to kill someone, I mean.. they could steal a toaster, and drop it in someone's bath to electrocute them (Has Mythbuster's tackled that one yet?)..

I don't see it as rational that someone should be held liable for crimes committed with something that was stolen from them.

motivez · 07-16-2007, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

. . .VA Tech. . .

And he bought those legally. Is the guy who sold it for him responsible for the murders?

Thorgrim · 07-16-2007, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

/agree JaJae

There's many objects in one's home that could be potentially used for crime / to kill someone, I mean.. they could steal a toaster, and drop it in someone's bath to electrocute them (Has Mythbuster's tackled that one yet?)..

I don't see it as rational that someone should be held liable for crimes committed with something that was stolen from them.

You have to go back to vodka example, do you believe the alcohol supplier should be liable? Once you go from there, then it's only a few steps away...considering both instances, the hypo and what happened, are violations of state law

Thorgrim · 07-16-2007, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

And he bought those legally. Is the guy who sold it for him responsible for the murders?

No, much like a liquor store who sells a bottle of vodka to a 21 year old is not responsible

Two compeltely different situations...in what i am saying, someone broke the law

motivez · 07-16-2007, 12:31 AM

The alcohol supplier should be liable for their own actions, ie: violating the law by selling or buying alcohol for a minor.

If you're a gas station attendant and sell alcohol to a non-minor, who gets drunk then goes out and runs over a family of six and their four pets (all fluffy bunnies, btw), are they liable for that guys poor decision to drive while under the influence?

Donkey® · 07-16-2007, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Someone could have broken into his home and stolen a steak knife and went out and killed a kid with it. Should he be held responsible for that murder? What if someone broke into his home and stole his baseball bat and hit someone over the head with it? Should he be responsible?

It seems people have an irrational need to blame gun owners for the actions of criminals.

There is no law telling us that having a steak knife stolen from us will get us in trouble.

motivez · 07-16-2007, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There is no law telling us that having a steak knife stolen from us will get us in trouble.

No, but there should be, right? I mean, there's plenty of murders and assaults involving stabbing in the United States.. it's a potentially deadly weapon.

And blunt objects too. I have a piece of firewood on my patio, and a fire-poker-thingy that could potentially be used to bludgeon someone to death.

And what if my pool is used to drown someone?

What if my electrical extension cord is used to strangle someone?

It's ridiculous.

Thorgrim · 07-16-2007, 12:41 AM

Again, so selling to a 16, 18 year old...violating the law...you are not responsible in anyway whatsoever if that ends in a death

I'm sorry, but a lot of my friends who are now federal agents, yale graduates, etc were fucking idiots when they were 16 or high school seniors...give them a bottle of vodka and a cheap car and you're asking for someone to get killed

liability...in the few of the majority...is not something that is 100% one person everytime

if a 16 year old kid was in jail for killing someone you loved while driving drunk, who would you want to see for justice...the kid or his 40 year old uncle who gave him the bottle and told him to have fun?

Me, I'd hate the uncle

Dumpy Dooby · 07-16-2007, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, much like a liquor store who sells a bottle of vodka to a 21 year old is not responsible

Two compeltely different situations...in what i am saying, someone broke the law

So effectively, what you're saying is that if I am 20, and it's the day before my birthday, I can go to a liquor store and purchase alcohol illegally, and the attendant SHOULD he held responsible for my actions while I'm drunk. However, if I purchase the alcohol the very next day, the attendant SHOULD NOT be held responsible for my actions while I'm drunk.

To narrow it down a bit more: You're suggesting that individuals should be held responsible for the actions of others if the individual is guilty of a previous crime.

The problem with this argument is that it neglects to actually explain how some sort of partial abrogation of responsibility between individuals actually takes place. At what point am I no longer responsible for another individual's actions? And why? If you say that the responsibility is dependent on the law (which is exactly what you're saying), then you're guilty of circular reasoning and an irresponsible romanticization of statism.

Yeah, I'm with the other guys. That argument is just plain ridiculous.

WickedLou9 · 07-16-2007, 07:38 AM

Thats a stupid law. This is coming from me too. They totally negate the idea of having a gun to defend your home. That's the problem with living in the north east. Gun control laws are insane. They are just as bad here in NJ. I don't see how they can hold someone responsible for thier stolen gun being used in a crime. That seems a bit ridiculous. What if I didn't properly secure my car, someone steals it and then runs over a family or something. Obviously in this case the law would never hold me liable, but why is there another standard for guns? Both are potentially deadly weapons. Both require a license to own and operate. Both have legitamate purposes for which they can be used. The Ironic thing is that we don't have a right to bear automobiles guaranteed to us.

I'm sorry to hear that you have to deal with this crap man

WickedLou9 · 07-16-2007, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So effectively, what you're saying is that if I am 20, and it's the day before my birthday, I can go to a liquor store and purchase alcohol illegally, and the attendant SHOULD he held responsible for my actions while I'm drunk. However, if I purchase the alcohol the very next day, the attendant SHOULD NOT be held responsible for my actions while I'm drunk.

To narrow it down a bit more: You're suggesting that individuals should be held responsible for the actions of others if the individual is guilty of a previous crime.

The problem with this argument is that it neglects to actually explain how some sort of partial abrogation of responsibility between individuals actually takes place. At what point am I no longer responsible for another individual's actions? And why? If you say that the responsibility is dependent on the law (which is exactly what you're saying), then you're guilty of circular reasoning and an irresponsible romanticization of statism.

Yeah, I'm with the other guys. That argument is just plain ridiculous.

The only time I could ever see someone being held partially responsible is in a case where you knew what the other persons intention was. IE perhaps you sold them a gun legally, however that person told you prior to sale they were going to go rob a bank, or shoot someone. Something along those lines. There needs to be some sort of willful intent to hold someone responsible.

IMO, the fact that your doors are locked should be secure enough from someone outside your home to negate any possible case of negligence.

Thorgrim · 07-16-2007, 11:27 AM

The problem with this argument is that it neglects to actually explain how some sort of partial abrogation of responsibility between individuals actually takes place. At what point am I no longer responsible for another individual's actions? And why? If you say that the responsibility is dependent on the law (which is exactly what you're saying), then you're guilty of circular reasoning and an irresponsible romanticization of statism.

First off, your previous example is like "so if a 70 year old billionare has rough anal sex with a girl 1 day before she turns 18, its a crime? this is stupid, we should rid ourselves of all age restriction laws, if an 70 year old wants to fuck a 15 year old girl, go ahead"

Second off, your "problem" raises a valid concern, but again you should realize that conservative and liberal judgse have wrestled with this issue for decades/centuries so I have no shortage of reasons why both spectrums of ideology have come to embrace it

the point you break the law, and YOUR NEGLIGENCE has AIDED SOMEONE ELSE COMMITTING A CRIME, you are least 0.00000000000000001% responsible, maybe the driver of the getaway car is 19% responsible, and the guy who shot a priceless vase is 80% responsible, the point is...if multiple people are involved in breaking the law in what lead to a crime, courts break up responsibility

how do we decide on what scale is someone responsible? a jury of your peers decides the percentages

motivez · 07-16-2007, 11:30 AM

There's a huge difference in your analogy of the getaway driver and someone else.

The driver is complicit in the act. He knew what was going on. He had a choice whether or not to participate in said action. As such, finding him responsible is not nearly as much of a stretch as it is to say someone is responsible for what happens with their property after it's stolen.

Go back to my example.

Someone steals my extension cord and strangles someone with it.
Someone breaks into my yard and drowns someone in my pool.
Someone steals my Zippo and sets a house on fire with it.
Someone steals my knife and stabs someone with it.
...etc, etc..

I have 0 responsibility for what someone else does with an item that they have illegally taken from me, without my knowledge or consent.

Same is true for someone else.

Publius · 07-16-2007, 11:32 AM

so Thorgrim, if someone stole your car from you at a light at knife point, then ran someone down with it, and before being caught managed to kill a cop... you'd feel that you should be charged with vehicular homicide and murdering a police officer (in addition to the myriad of other charges such as fleeing the scene, resisting arrest, etc.)? After all, they used YOUR car so everything they did is partially YOUR fault.